| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 10-23-2010 |
Yep, I'm back at it after a long break to get married, spend some time on vacation with the new Misses and hit up Manhattan for some meetings at ESPN. Thanks for the patience, the well-wishes and the continued interest and contributions you all make regularly here at Prospect Insider.
Thanks to Chris Crawford and Paul Marsh for holding down the fort, but it's nap time, fellas. I'll wake you in December for the winter meetings.(click here to jump back to Chris' GBU from earlier today.)
Before I link the jump to the postseason premium notebook for subscribers only, I wanted to update everyone on the state of the site.
If you haven't heard, PI is getting another face lift. That will happen soon after I take care of a related matter, but will likely be live before the new year. Here are some of the issues that will dealt with:
1. RSS feed will be complete.
2. Comments will be RSS compatible.
3. Navigation will become simpler for the user.
4. The menu bar will be much more relevant and contain far more data, including a deeper player database
5. Within feature posts, player names will always be linked to the PI bio page of that player.
6. The subscription process will be automated, which means so much, including a much easier and quicker process for the reader, and far less work for PI's staff in setting access levels, etc.
7. The ad placement will change, and probably be somewhat for the better in terms of clearing the main spaces for content.
8. The new design and guts of the site will allow for more podcasts and easier video publishing, which means tons more of each.
9. There will be changes visually, but those aren't nearly as important. Certainly no for us, and probably not so much for the reader, either.
10. As part of the changes will come additional staff to the site as well, including a few from outside the Seattle area and those that cover other teams and leagues below MLB. In short, a wider variety of content.
We've put subscription and ad revenues aside for some time to pay for the changes, and will continue to plan for additional improvements down the line. we ask for your patience in completing the changes, because the existing database of content and users has to be moved manually. But we'll get it done, and the site will be better for it.
Now, onto the latest -- and first in a long time -- premium notebook.
If you are not a subscriber, click here and gain access. Please note the instructions.
premium-notebook:-october,-2010
Comments
The following 37 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: Chris Crawford on 10-23-2010 16:48:50 Yay. |
| 2. By: rjfrik on 10-23-2010 17:49:45 Welcome back Jason and congrats. I'm recently married myself and I have to say it's a wonderful thing. Enjoy it! |
| 3. By: shemberry on 10-23-2010 18:05:57 Jason, Regarding item number 6 in the second paragraph: do you know the individuals name, or just the caliber of player that was discussed? |
| 4. By: safecochatter on 10-23-2010 20:04:02 everything i hear or read says the m's budget will not be increased. have you heard otherwise? i liked the organization depth chart tab that pi used to have. will that,or something similar be on the new design? |
| 5. By: Jason A. Churchill on 10-23-2010 20:35:02 I have heard that the club is open to a payroll increase, but that they aren't just going to do it for the hell of it. We'll do a depth chart... 'fo sho. |
| 6. By: acqb1424 on 10-23-2010 22:42:25 Jason, Congrats on getting married. I hope you're enjoying it. |
| 7. By: VikingArthur on 10-24-2010 21:50:45 Condolences on your marriage. Looking forward to the offseason full of bluster and rumors mixed in with some real positive (I hope) changes. |
| 8. By: marinermutt on 10-24-2010 23:15:17 Jason, Any update on Paxton? Do you think he'll sign before spring training? I just keep wondering what he is waiting for. Thanks, |
| 9. By: Jason A. Churchill on 10-24-2010 23:19:06 mutt, There is no reason for him to sign until it's time to pack up for Peoria. He might as well wait out the M's to see if he can get an extra buck, and I suspect that is what he will do. |
| 10. By: Edman on 10-25-2010 03:26:19 Paxton had a less than impressive year in the Indy league last year. His stock is dropping rapidly. I do believe I read that Seattle gets a compensation pick, though probably near the end of the third round, if they don't sign Paxton. With next year's deep draft, that might not be a good fall-back position. I don't know that I'd be willing to sign him for big money, if I was Jack. Two years away from starting his minor league career is a lot to lose. |
| 11. By: Jerry on 10-25-2010 11:21:45 I like the idea of Grady Sizemore, but I doubt that the Indians would deal him now. Right now, his value couldn't get any lower. He is signed for $7.5 mil next year, and has a team option for $8.5 mil in 2012. The only reason I could see them moving him is if they really wanted to cut payroll. I am not sure what it would take to pick him up, but it would at least be interesting to look into. He's always been one of my favorite players. He is a legit 30/30 guy who walks a lot and plays good defense. He would be an ideal fit for the M's, as he's a great #3 hitter. Plus, he's a local guy who is popular with fans, and would be a face of the franchise type player if they could lock him up long term. However, that knee injury is a huge concern. He had micro-fracture surgery during the season. Although he is supposed to be ready for spring training, that is a worrisome injury, especially for someone who's game is based on speed. It would be a huge risk to acquire him before he has a chance to show that the knee is good. Who knows what it would take to get him. Given the risk, the price could be lower than we'd think. But if I was the Indians, I would probably just hold out for a bit and see if he rebounds. Because if he's healthy, that contract is a bargain. |
| 12. By: Edman on 10-25-2010 13:07:09 Now is not the time to take more contract risks. They need to shed some bad contracts and find out what kind of structure they have, before taking on Grady Sizemore. They're already stuck with Milton Bradley's contract. Let's trim out the roster before we start taking chances again. You never get out of debt by contantly playing the stock market. If you're right, you win big. If you're wrong, you're deeper in debt. Seldom do you end up ahead by constantly betting the horses. |
| 13. By: Jason A. Churchill on 10-25-2010 13:15:11 Did someone suggest that Sizemore is or should be on the M's radar? |
| 14. By: slamcactus on 10-25-2010 13:58:21 There's no compensation pick for Paxton. The Ms will get a supplemental 3rd-rounder for failing to sign Stanek, but compensation picks for unsigned guys end after the third round. It's Paxton or nothing out of last year's 4th round selection. |
| 15. By: Edman on 10-25-2010 14:14:03 Supplemental works for me. At least it's not a complete loss if they don't sign him. |
| 16. By: Jason A. Churchill on 10-25-2010 15:04:41 Edman, The supplemental 3rd is for not signing Stanek. The Mariners get nada for failing to sign Paxton, if that happens. |
| 17. By: FWBrodie on 10-25-2010 15:53:40 Jason do you have any insight/opinion on Nakajima as a possible short term second baseman long term utility infielder? Supposedly he's pretty certain to be posted? |
| 18. By: Jason A. Churchill on 10-25-2010 16:21:31 The last I heard is that Seibu is leaning toward not posting him. I wrote somewhere -- can't remember where now (maybe in the comments section here) -- that Nakajima is not thought to be much more than a fringe player in the states, including his defense. Considering the cost involved in paying the posting fee and then the player's salary, it's probably not going to be a wise investment for a club such as Seattle considering the place they are in right now. |
| 19. By: Edman on 10-25-2010 20:22:26 Thanks Jason. I think Paxton's refusal to sign both last year and this, coupled with his poor showing in the Indy league, is going to make it anywhere close to what he could have made, had he signed with Toronto last year. He'd at the very least, have a chance to be playing in the major leagues next year. All he's done is push himself out further than he needed to and may never make back the money he's lost. It's not likely that Seattle will pay him anymore than slot money for where he was picked. |
| 20. By: Lailoken on 10-25-2010 20:53:24 Jason, A few questions. 1. How likely is it the Mariners release Bradley &/or Jack Wilson? 2. What do you think of FA SP options like De La Rosa, Francis, Kuroda, & Chris Young? 3. When might Cleto be moved into a relief role? 4. Any update on the state of the M's scouting department? One comment. For the record I really like the idea of Dioner Navarro at catcher. He'll likely be non-tendered. Switch-hitter, twenty-six, & looking for playing time after a couple down years. |
| 21. By: Jason A. Churchill on 10-25-2010 21:02:19 Edman, Agreed. Lailoken, 1. Possible, but not likely, and not likely. 2. JDLR doesn't make sense for Seattle right now. Francis is a big risk with health, Kuroda if it's a short-term deal for No. 4 starter money is a decent idea, and Chris Young on a non-guaranteed deal yes. 3. Maybe soon, but if he's still with the org in March, I think he starts the year in the rotation. 4. Nothing new yet. Navarro isn't the worst idea, but Seattle won't be the only club calling. He's not very good, but they could do worse. |
| 22. By: Lailoken on 10-26-2010 00:19:13 Thanks for the answers & congrats on the love & marriage news. |
| 23. By: micahjr on 10-26-2010 03:25:20 "Maywidge, sweet maywidge" Congrats! I'm really enjoying maywidge. Hope you do too! Welcome back, and thanks for the info. |
| 24. By: Jason A. Churchill on 10-26-2010 13:41:30 Thanks for the congrats guys! |
| 25. By: bl4dux on 10-26-2010 22:06:40 Cleto is touched 99 tonight. HEAT baby! |
| 26. By: Jason A. Churchill on 10-26-2010 22:11:16 Unfortunately, Cleto is STILL just an arm strength guy. |
| 27. By: marinerseric on 10-27-2010 01:05:19 Jason, congrats on getting married. It is one special day and rightfully so :) |
| 28. By: Missthosepilots on 10-27-2010 13:04:24 Welcome back Jason. Thanks for the report! And more important...a delight to see you doing great - Congrats! |
| 29. By: sportin2 on 10-28-2010 08:59:25 "The Ms' crew bucked the scouting consensus with Franklin as well" Scouting consensus? I guess I missed the final tabulation of votes. The only surprise about Franklin was how bad the Seattle media types swung and missed on him. |
| 30. By: Edman on 10-28-2010 11:47:00 sportin, I don't know that it's media types alone. The internet crowd take the media hype and work themselves into beliefs. They fall in love with the glam picks. They read things all over the internet and form them into a consensus of their own. I just addressed someone who believed that the Baron pick was based on a couple of scouts turning in glowing reports. That's not how it works. Certainly, they review all the scouting reports. But, the cross-check every player they'd consider in the higher rounds. And certainly, in the first round. I wouldn't be surprised if McNamara himself observed him in person. It's not up to a couple of scouts as to who gets drafted. We may not agree with their drafing criteria, but they have one, and you can bet it doesn't involve following what BP, ESPN and other sources think. They certainly read them, but they do their own investigation. I respect Jason and Keith Law, they're good at what they do. But, drafting is a gamble. It's about projecting, and with a kid 18 years old, or even 21 in college, it's not always easy to see what the effect of proper coaching could have on their future. It's a crapshoot, some develop, many don't. |
| 31. By: subterranean on 10-28-2010 14:02:54 Edman, I certainly agree that to some extent the draft is a 'crapshoot' but that is not all that it is. It seems disingenious to charactize it that way. If that was the case, why have a drafting criteria at all? Some methodologies improve the odds more than others. THat's how some clubs set themselves up to be more successful than others at drafting and developing. That is not to say that there isn't some element of luck. SOmetimes a scout lucks into seeing a certain player that no one else has really seen. Sometimes the player advances a lot faster or in ways that can't be predicted. Certainly prospects do not follow a linear developmental path. But the craps/gambling metaphor is not entirely accurate. |
| 32. By: Edman on 10-28-2010 15:24:37 We'll have to disagree, sub. It is a crapshoot. Sure, you can take note of the that dice rolls and see that some numbers have come up more frequently than others, but it doesn't mean that because a snakeeye dice roll is the least frequent number to have been rolled, that it's a sure thing. Certainly good scouting improves your ability to produce a major league baseball player. I never said it didn't. But, there is a lot of luck involved also. A kid can have all the tools, and when he gets into the system, does not have the work ethic or dedication to become a major leaguer. The point is, first round draft picks don't come with guarantees, just better odds. |
| 33. By: sportin2 on 10-28-2010 17:16:48 Thank you, and exactly the point. From the seed the flower grows. The analysis is planted, verified and then fertilized. Average Joe sees, reads, and now believes. But beware the gardener isn’t who he appears to be. I agree and you had me all the way up to the end. The key to a productive draft is knowing what you are looking at. Some can tell the difference between a cactus and rose and some can’t even with slo-mo video. Likewise you can’t pop a couple tweaks with the average athlete and get the results that were achieved by Franklin if something wasn’t there to begin with. |
| 34. By: baseballman on 10-28-2010 19:39:05 Congrats JAC and welcome back! Good read, this offseason will def be a busy one. Hard to believe but it could be the busiest yet under Z |
| 35. By: slamcactus on 10-29-2010 16:51:15 "The point is, first round draft picks don't come with guarantees, just better odds." Much better odds. In this year's all-star game, there were more former first-round draft picks (27) than 2nd-10th round picks combined (24). Same with 2009 (23 1st-rounders, 21 2nd-10th rounders). The differences are far more extreme if you exclude relievers. First-round draft picks are the single-best chance any team has at getting an elite major league player. A high percentage of 1st-rounders don't pan out, but there's a built-in mechanism that corrects for that risk. Namely, the price of any single pick (even a top-5 pick who gets a $6 million bonus) pales in comparison to the value added by a single pick who pans out and gives his team six productive club-controlled seasons. In just over half a year, Buster Posey's already returned almost $16 million in value for the Giants relative to the cost of wins on the open market. That's over twice his $6.2 million signing bonus. All that's to say, when you have extra first-round picks, reaching for someone who you don't see as a first-round talent is a terrible idea. |
| 36. By: Edman on 10-30-2010 01:59:34 Reach is your word, and that of many others. But, you "assume" that Seattle saw Baron as a reach. I know if they did or didn't, but have to believe that they wouldn't throw away a first round pick, as you'd like to believe. Many thought they had done that when they selected Franklin. How much scouting do you do, slam? You tour the country evaluating talent, or do you read the stuff you read and make your evaluations? It fits your belief system to think that because the M's didn't take the glamor pick that you'd endorse, that they "reached" to take someone they knew to be an inferior talent. I don't agree. And, the truth is probably somewhere in between. |
| 37. By: slamcactus on 10-31-2010 17:52:27 We know several things for sure, Edman. 1) scouting consensus had Baron ad a 3rd-5th rounder. 2) days before the draft people reported that the Ms had a pre-draft deal to draft Baron. We thought the pre-draft deal was for below slot, which didn't work out, but we knew the pick was coming despite scouting consensus that had him much farther down the board. 3) In contrast to Franklin, who was a late riser on a lot of teams boards and who it was widely reported the Mariners "loved," the press releases and conversation around the Baron pick was lukewarm at best. After the 2009 draft Zduriencik and McNamara were all over Ackley for obvious reasons, and McNamara made a note to praise Franklin, but they were silent on Baron. The writeup on Baron on the Mariners site at MLB.com (also known as the team's PR wing) read: "The 6-foot, 190-pounder is developing as a hitter, hitting two home runs in his first 87 at-bats during his senior season. The strong-armed receiver caught 54.2 percent (13-of-24) of attempted base stealers this season, including the last 10." - No quotes from high-ups in the scouting department, no mention of how the Mariners see potential in him that other teams didn't, not even a proclamation of being excited to have the kid in the system. Instead, it just said what everyone knew: strong glove, weak bat. While I generally try to avoid reading other peoples' minds, I'm pretty confident saying that the Mariners didn't see Baron as a "best player available" pick. You're right, I don't have any direct evidence that the team didn't see him as a bona fide first-round talent. That doesn't really bother me. At all. Finally, I'd much rather assume they made the poor choice to save money with their #33 pick than that the amateur scouting folks are capable of making such a collossal screwup. It's much worse if the team actually saw him as a legitimate first-rounder. There's never, ever a situation where an all-glove no-hit high school catcher is the best player available at #33 overall. Baron had the lowest upside of anyone selected in the supplemental round, and his risk was as high or higher than any of them as well. I've said it before, but high risk, low reward is the absolute worst draft profile possible. If McNamara saw Baron as arguably the best player available, he'd deserve to be fired immediately. Fortunately, he didn't. "but have to believe that they wouldn't throw away a first round pick, as you'd like to believe. Many thought they had done that when they selected Franklin." Many disagreed with Seattle's scouts, but we knew that Seattle's scouts loved Franklin. A lot of people thought there were better options on the board, but I don't remember anyone saying they were taking him to skimp on signing bonuses. "How much scouting do you do, slam?" None professionally, but I've seen plenty of Baron, and Franklin, and most Ms farmhands I comment on. Not that it matters much. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
 |
|
|
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |